Hambulo’s son appeals against magistrate
Kaoma’s ruling in Nawakwi case
By Mwaka Ndawa
SON of the late Geoffrey Hambulo, Mulundu, has appealed to the High Court against the decision of magistrate Felix Kaoma to dismiss the matter in which he dragged Edith Nawakwi to court for holding on to his father’s property and moving farm machinery from his premises in Makeni to her private farm in Chisamba.
Mulundu, on behalf of his siblings, had lodged a complaint against Nawakwi for interfering in the affairs of the estate of his late father.
Nawakwi was facing a charge of intermeddling, contrary to the law.
Particulars of offence were that Nawakwi between December 2021 and January 2022 moved a planter, shearer, folk lifter, cutter and Baileigh from the estate of the late Hambulo to her farm in Chisamba.
She is alleged to have declined to hand over keys to the properties forming part of the estate between January 12, 2022 and January 25 this year and told tenants occupying the flats at her residence on Luwato Road, Roma township Lusaka, to ignore Mulundu and Mweemba’s letters of administration issued by the court so that she could collect rentals.
Nawakwi is on the same dates alleged to have claimed her husband’s farm as her own and verbally abused the administrators.
Nawakwi, whose case was allocated to magistrate Kaoma following the recusal of magistrate Nthandose Chabala, could not take plea as magistrate Kaoma dismissed the complaint on reasons that Mulundu’s confirmation as administrator for his late father’s estate was being challenged before the High Court.
However, according to the notice of appeal, Mulundu seeks to contest the magistrate’s decision before the High Court on four grounds and that other grounds of appeal will be availed to the court upon further perusal of the case record.
According to the grounds of appeal, the appellant argues that under all the circumstances of the case the dismissal of the complaint is unsafe, unsatisfactory and against the weight of evidence.
Mulundu said the trial court misdirected itself in law when it dismissed the complaint on grounds that the complainant ought to be an administrator of the estate in order to sustain the proceedings.
He said magistrate Kaoma wrongly and without any lawful justification found that the complaint was prematurely before court since his appointment as administrator has been opposed.
“The trial court having correctly ruled that the charge be amended misdirected itself in law and facts when it dismissed the complaint instead of staying the proceedings pending litigation in the High Court,” said Mulundu.